anyone compared these 2 ? ive read a couple forums where it was said the R2 is noticeably better than the R1. but didnt really give a reason why. i can get an R1 3-10x50 for around $650. or spend double and get the R2 (with illumination). i do have an illuminated meostar and while the dot is nice im not sure its a total necessity for the hunting i do is why im just considering going with the R1 3-10 with #4. but if glass is noticeably better in the R2 i dont mind spending a little more

You would think all the Meostars would share the same glass, and the extra $'s are in the illumination and the 6x magnification system. The 2.5-15x56 would be a nice bit of gear with a good magnification range for short and mid range shooting

I know the R2 has a little different lens coating package than the R1. The R2 line coatings are supposed to be a little better in low light than the R1 coatings, and the R2 line has a hydrophobic coating that is absent with the R1. I don't know how perceptible the differences are to the user. When coupled with the 6x zoom ratio, the R2 is a pretty attractive package.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum